Topic: SegWit and LN are really interesting altcoins... but that is not Bitcoin. (Read 3569 times)

From the most slanted dick in the entire forum.

Thx. So from you I can learn all the rest than, exept tech, because no deletions needed....

 

Learning about tech is pretty hard going in a thread where both sides don't agree on what the tech is/does. You'll learn alot about false arguments being presented as the truth, however.


Are there only 2 sides? I wasn't aware of any deletions, just a bit of convenient post editing after the fact from Franky

Tx a lot to the OP AND to bitcointalk.org + mod to have this kind of thread w/o too much deleting, we all can learn a lot about bitcoin and scaling and tech and politics and insulting. Good.

What is the final outcome now ? Or it is up to definition or semantics ?

And how many posts got deleted for both sides pls?

I am confused. Where will this extra LN.BTC come from when the amount locked to open the payment channel is all there is represented in the Lightning Network, no more no less. Please explain what you are trying to say a little better by giving another example.


But hold on. Let us assume you are correct with the inflation of the LN.BTC in the network, but do not forget that in order to participate and have funds in LN you should buy Bitcoin. If LN is successful then the demand for real Bitcoins will only go higher. Now this is where the problem of fungibility comes in as I mentioned before. Real Bitcoin's value will go up due to demand but LN.BTC will suffer from variance and in your argument of inflation in LN.BTC it might go down. The effect will be the opposite of what you are thinking because people would prefer to hold real BTC because now it is very clear in its value than lock them in LN when there is no need.

right now miners are not reliant on tx fee's. the miners income is over 97.6% reward:2.4% fee (12.5btc:0.3btc) (reward:txfee) it will be a long time before the flip occurs where miners are reliant on tx fee's and by that time the 'popularity' of bitcoin should have improved enough to have lots of opening and closing of channels to pay the miner fee's.
todays 0.3 fee total becomes 50:50 after the year 2024 (2 reward halvings) but before 2028
changes in bitcoin valuation and also blockcapacity also change/delay when the flip will occur.

lets say we are in the future where 1btc is $6000 and say miners want $10k in just fee's (as oppose to ~$7,500 in reward now) per block..
they will require blocks capable of 166,666tx ONCHAIN at ~6cents a tx(<70mb block)acceptable bloat in 20 years, acceptable fee
they will require blocks capable of 8,500tx ONCHAIN at ~$1.20cents a tx(<4mb block)acceptable bloat in 8 years, not acceptable fee

im not going to bother calculating the 70mb block scenario of 20 years.because although the spread of fee's is cheaper its just going to make the blockstreamers knitpick the blocksize debate. rather than the point about fee's

now lets deal with the finer details
its worth noting
the average person uses a debit/credit card only 20 times a fortnight in the real world, which breaks down as 12cents a LN tx if the same usage occurred offchain within LN to cover the combined $2.40 open/close transactions per fortnight
so the presumption is for LN to remain open for longer to reduce overall cost of use per offchain tx.

which if people were doing the 20tx a fortnight. means that based on a 4mb block in 8 years time
UPTO 2125 channels open per block(2peers tx pay in=1channel), 4250 channels close per block(both paid out in one tx)
a fortnights lock of 4250 people. which equates to a POSSIBLE 8 million people using LN MAX (at 12cent/tx for their usual 20tx a fortnight).
a months lock of 4250 people. which equates to a POSSIBLE 16 million people using LN MAX (at 6cent/tx for their usual 40tx a month).

ofcourse, of block capacity was 8mb in 8 years the onchain fee per tx would be $0.60 to give miners $10k (allowing upto 32mill users using LN)
ofcourse, of block capacity was 16mb in 8 years the onchain fee per tx would be $0.30 to give miners $10k (allowing upto 64mill users using LN)

summary:
i see it as possible to work but thats assuming that
8-16mill active bitcoiners exist
8-16mill people will be happily even want to lockfunds in.
8-16mill people will be happily do 20tx a fortnight-month usage to equate to 6-12cents each LN tx, to cover the combined $2.40 open/close tx
miners want only $10k - if they want more fee's get higher and timelocks need extending to keep overall cost of use down
bitcoin valuation is $6000 - if its lower fee's get higher and timelocks need extending to keep overall cost of use down


and now lets wait for the mindless, unbacked up, unresearched blockstream defender rants that blockstream desire to cause fee war in 2017 instead of 2024-2036 so that offchain/sidechain are the permanent peg utopian future and eventually no one should use bitcoin onchain transactions because they see large fee's are a good barrier of entry to use bitcoin and a ploy to get people to go offchain. (usual bitcoin killing mantra)

@ Shills


No comment, huh?

So, if you accept that regular Bitcoin is still possible after Segwit/LN are introduced, and that Segwit/LN are altcoins, here's what I suggest you do:


Don't buy any Segwit "coins" lol
Don't buy any Lightning "coins" lol

Problem solved?

I meant to say is that the lock out time only when there is an uncooperative channel is 2 weeks. Otherwise the channel can remain open as long as the individual at the other end is cooperative.

As for item no. 4 in your post, I agree the system is not trustless but it is better than what something like the Ripple network is proposing. Ripple is all depending on trust that a gateway will not go away with your money. For me it is good to explore all possible avenues for scalabilty. Make the hard fork to bigger blocks the last resort because it is risky.

@Shills


Will regular Bitcoin transactions still be possible, once the altcoins are released? (just trying to see how demented your fantasies really are)

if the locktime was 2 weeks thats only 2016 offchain payments are allowed
if the locktime was 24 hours thats only 144 offchain payments are allowed,
ill explain
EG imagine we are at block 450,000 right now
make a TX with 24 hour locktime = 450,144
make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,143 (to keep newest relevant)
make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,142 (to keep newest relevant)
make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,142 (to keep newest relevant)

issues
1) not unlimited.
2) if you make 140 payments in 30 minutes (current block 450,003 - payment lock now reduced to 450,004)you have to close channel and broadcast newest payment quick before previous tx become able to release funds
3) you and peer go offline/sleep. then its a game of who wakes up first and transmits the best tx in their favour, that has passed the timelock.
4) it is not a trustless system, it is a system based on mutual agreement.

atleast talking about the flaws will help develop solutions or users knowing the limitations to make smart choices about how when and why they would use it. rather then pretend its all utopia and every tx should be done on it, always and forever

Um, you're relying on your audience being too stupid or too lazy to check this for themselves. That's not a very good strategy, anyone can check for themselves, and confirm you're talking nonsense.

There is nothing anywhere in any Lightning design document that says "mining is cancelled, Blockstream investors are the only miners allowed".

Your trolling is terrrrrrrible. And desperate.

they would kill bitcoin since they steal mining fees and pocket it for their investors. This leaves miners without fees, and it would kill bitcoin in the long run, once block rewards become too small to cover the expenses for miners.

So, will you be selling all your SegWits then, ROFL? You'll be rich when you sell all your Lightning coins, Franky and jonny think Lightning inflates the money supply (although so far, the closest they've got to proving that is when Franky said "people will perceive the money supply growing"). Yeah, people that don't understand the difference between adding and dividing.

Lightning might add some extra decimal places, but saying that's adding to the system is incorrect. It is dividing the money supply.

The more you people hang on to these bizarre attempts at propagandising Bitcoin development, the more obvious it will be to even the most non-techy people out there. When do you ever get anyone chiming in with the trolls who's actually someone real in Bitcoin? The IRL contingent in favour of the trolls is tiny; it's basically Roger Ver and all his pedophile celebr-itarian friends.

This is my opinion on the scaling debate. There are certain individuals or group of individuals that have their own agendas and their own self interests threatened by how slow the Bitcoin economy is growing. Those people have invested in Bitcoin companies and only to see them become stagnant. So they blame that the Bitcoin economy is not growing fast enough because it cannot scale, so there is the need for larger blocks and that the immediate effect to this is an expanding Bitcoin economy. But is it really that simple? Maybe those individuals are right but maybe they are also wrong. Why? A hard fork comes with great risk. Ethereum is a very good example of this.

I also believe that up to a certain point, the people who want bigger blocks want control over the development of Bitcoin.

Simple.  Make 4MB blocks tomorrow.  Still Bitcoin.  Always Bitcoin.  4MB will let the network expand for another 3 years maybe.  During those 3 years, we should work on some nice alternatives to scaling.  But for now, 4MB is a very conservative little adjustment.  Only a few lines of code to remove a limit that was put in long after the genesis block anyway.

I have read somewhere in the forum that the lock out time if in case there is an uncooperative channel is 2 weeks. It would be stupid of the developers not to put this feature, making it possible for your coins to be locked forever. I would suggest that the person opening the channel should be able to choose how long the minimum time out is as long as it is not less than 24 hours. I believe that would be better.

Speaking of flaws there could be another potential shortcoming in the system. Since the Lightning Network requires the locking of Bitcoins to open payment channels and then unlocking or "withdraw" them when you a channel, would this not send a heavier load on the blockchain and it might even cause a bottle neck? For example LN reaches a half of Visa's transaction and then for some reason a panic selling in the markets start and thousands of payment channels close at the same time to unlock people's Bitcoins.

In that scenario, what kind of strain will it bring to the whole Bitcoin network? Will it clog it and make it unusable for an "X" amount of time?

So TKeenan what solution do you propose? Do we want to boycott both Lining Network and SegWit because these solution are not exactly a pure breed of bitcoin?
Do we have real options to enrich BTC without these upgrades? At some point bitcoin needs to be upgraded...

They are not improvements to bitcoin.  They are altcoins designed to enrich Blockstream - a privately owned company.

Its programmed within the LN code, so it is essentially like saying that all Ethereum
contracts and actions are also middleman controlling the keys.
LN is an automated escrow contracting system.



I'm not sure, but I think the LN tx system is not the same as Bitcoins.
It would have other aspects besides the proof signatures.
I think there are programmable functions that must be fully met before the tx can validate.

I think the unbroadcasted LN tx system is contingent on unfinalized agreements.
If the two parties create a new agreement or update the agreement, the prior tx doesn't execute
correctly and would send back an error that says the agreement terms are new or updated.

When all conditions are met, then they are "finalized" and then the tx can broadcast and be validated.
I don't know what the truth is, this is what my basic understanding was.

But I agree in part, that this type of system will never be as trustless and secured as Bitcoin p2p.
I think the LN Devs admit that there are issues and problems, especially with trust and don't consider it "perfect".
But it is still worth experimenting and attempting to solve these problems.


Edit: As a reminder, I was always told that this system is for small exchanges, so a TV, depending on the price,
might be too risky in the LN system. A TV worth 500 USD should stay on the bitcoin blockchain, IMO.